Jagadish S/O Thimmanna Agadi vs Prakhash S/O Thimmanna Agadi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7426 Kant

                           -1-



           IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD B ENCH


         DATED T HIS THE 25 T H DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        B EFORE

     THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE PRADEEP SINGH YERU R


               MFA NO.101540/ 2015 (MV)

BET WEEN:

JAGADIS H S/O THIMMANNA AGADI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/O: NEKAR COLONY, RANEB ENNU R,
TQ: RANEB ENNU R, DIST: HAVERI.
                                          ...APPELLANT .
(BY SHRI G N NARASAMMANAVAR AND SHRI
R.V.RANGANAVAR, ADVOCATES.)


AND:

1.    PRAKHASH S/O TH IMMANNA AGADI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O: NEKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR,
      TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

2.    THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
      NEW INSU RANCE CO. LT D.,
      A.M.ARCADE C.G.HOSPITAL R OAD,
      NEAR VIDHYARTH I B HAVAN, C.G.
      HOSPIT AL ROAD, DAVANAGERE.
                                       ...RESP ONDENT S.
(BY SHRI RAVINDR A R. MANE, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2;
R.1 - NOTICE SER VED.)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP PEAL IS F IL ED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOT OR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAY ING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED 07.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.158/ 2013, O N
THE FIL E OF THE PR INCIPA L SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AN D
MACT, RANEB ENNUR, DISMISS ING T HE CLAIM PET IT IO N
FIL ED U NDER SECTION 166 OF THE M.V. ACT, ETC.,.
                                      -2-



     THIS A PPEAL COMING ON FOR AD MISSION TH IS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED T HE FOLL OWING:


                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimant

challenging the judgment and award d ated

7.4.2015 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, (for

short 'the tribunal') in MVC No.158/2013. This

app eal is against the d ismissal of claim p etition.

2. Parties to the appeal shall b e referred to

as per their status before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

a) On 16.10.2012, at about 9.30 p.m. when

the claimant was proceed ing on motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-27/X-3424 as a p illion rider

from Raneb ennur toward s Mukthenahalli villag e,

Honnali taluk, at that time the 1 s t respond ent who

was rid er of the said vehicle rode the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner so as to end ang er

human life and personal safety of others, d ashed

against a goods lorry bearing registration

No.KA-04/C-4483, due to which the claimant

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter

he was taken to C.G.Hospital, Davangere, for first

aid treatment and thereafter shifted to

S.S.Hospital, Davangere, for better treatment. It is

claimed that he took further treatment for about

two months by spend ing Rs.1,00,000/-.

b) It is stated that prior to the occurrence

of the accid ent the claimant was hale and healthy

and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month as an

auto driver. Due to the accident, injuries sustained

by him, he has become permanently disabled and

unab le to do his daily activities as he was able to

do prior to the date of occurrence of accid ent. It is

further stated that the accident occurred due to the

sole neglig ence and rashness of the 1 s t respond ent.

In view of the injuries sustained in the accident

and having met huge expenses for treatment, the

claimant p referred claim petition seeking

comp ensation for the injuries sustained.

4. On service of notice, respondents who

are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle

have filed their detailed statement of objections

inter alia contending that the claimant was not the

pillion rider in the motorcycle whereas he was the

rider of the motorcycle. However, respond ent No.1

admitted that he is the owner of the offending

vehicle involved in the accident and brother of

claimant and that respond ent No.2 is the Insurance

Comp any in which he had insured his vehicle and

rider of the vehicle had a valid Driving Licence as

on the date of occurrence of accident. He further

plead ed that in case the liab ility is fastened on

him, respond ent No.1 would have to be indemnified

by respond ent No.2, in view of subsistence of

policy. It was also plead ed by respondent No.2

that the accid ent occurred d ue to the rash and

negligent manner of the rider of the motorcycle,

who did not possess a valid driving licence.

5. The respond ents also d enied the ag e,

avocation and income of the claimant, ap art from

stating that exorbitant amount of comp ensation is

sought for by the claimant. Respondent No.2-

Insurer also took up the p lea that the driver of the

offending vehicle d id not possess valid and

effective driving licence as on the date of accident.

However, respondent No.2-Insurer has admitted

the issuance of policy and same being in force

subject to terms and cond itions of policy.

Accordingly, they soug ht for d ismissal of the claim

petition.

6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal

has framed relevant issues for consideration.

7. In ord er to substantiate the issues and

to estab lish the case, the claimant got examined

himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got

marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.82. On the other

hand, respondent No.2-Insurer examined one

witness as RW.1 and got marked one document as

Ex.R.1 and the 1 s t respond ent deposed before the

tribunal as RW.2.

8. On the b asis of material evid ence both

oral and documentary, the tribunal d ismissed the

claim p etition with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/-.

9. Being agg rieved by the dismissal of the

claim petition, the claimant is before this Court

challenging the same.

10. It is the vehement contention of learned

counsel for app ellant-claimant that the trib unal has

erred in d ismissing the claim petition. The trib unal

has not taken into consid eration the material

evidence both oral and documentary thereby

causing miscarriag e of justice to the claimant. It is

further contend ed by learned counsel that the

tribunal has committed a serious error in not

consid ering the evid ence of PW.2 the doctor with

regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant. He

further contends that tribunal has committed gross

error in not app reciating the evid ence of PW.1 and

PW.2 and the fact that the claimant was the pillion

rider and has erred in not awarding any amount of

comp ensation to the claimant despite suffering

injuries due to the accident caused by the 1 s t

respondent. On the b asis of these submissions, he

seeks to allow the appeal, set asid e the judgment

of the tribunal and conseq uently award

comp ensation.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent-Insurer vehemently contends that the

judgment and award p assed by the trib unal is in

accordance with material evidence both oral and

documentary and same does not call for

interference at the hands of this Court. He further

contends that the claim petition was liab le to be

rejected on several g rounds and the tribunal has

rightly d ismissed the claim petition with exemp lary

costs. He contends that the claimant has not come

before the Court with clean hands. He is guilty of

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Learned

counsel further contends that even as p er the FIR

registered by unknown person namely Ramesh who

was at the spot of accident, the said claimant was

the person who was riding the motorcycle involved

in the accid ent and the pillion rider was none other

than the brother of claimant. But in ord er to make

unlawful g ain, has filed the claim p etition by

making a false statement that his brother, the

1 s t respondent who was pillion rider was rid ing the

motorcycle.

12. It is app arent on the face of the FIR

registered and also the complaint reg istered at

Ex.P.2, it was the claimant who was riding the

motorcycle and one Prakash was the pillion rider.

Learned counsel further contends that as per

Ex.P.9 which is the discharg e summary prod uced

by the claimant himself which evid ences the fact

that the claimant was ad mitted to the hosp ital with

a history of road traffic accid ent hit by a lorry

"while Pt was riding bike on 15.10.2012". It is

further stated in the d ischarg e summary that there

was no history of loss of consciousness, which is

contrary to the plead ings made by the claimant in

the claim p etition and also on oath in evid ence of

PW.1. Learned counsel further contends that Ex.P.3

which is strong ly relied by the claimant is a further

statement of complainant, but the same is

unsigned document which cannot be considered

which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law.

On the basis of these submissions, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs, as the

same does not merit consid eration.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

app ellant-claimant and learned counsel for

respondent-Insurer, the points that would arise for

consid eration before this Court are:

     i)    Whether       the      tribunal      has
           committed      any      illegality     in
           dismissing the claim p etition?

ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for comp ensation?

14. Having perused the entire material

evidence both oral and documentary and original

records and the impugned judgment and award and

having heard the submissions of learned counsel, I

am of the op inion that the tribunal has rightly

dismissed the claim p etition for the reasons stated

hereunder.

15. It is not in dispute that the accident

occurred on 16.10.2012 at 9.30 p.m. b etween the

motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/X-3424 and a p arked

- 10 -

lorry bearing No.KA-04/C-4483. In ord er to

substantiate this aspect and to p rove the same, the

claimant has p roduced the documents as Exs.P1 to

P5, which are the Police records. On a careful

perusal of these police records, it is clearly

app arent on the face of records that one Jag adish,

the claimant herein was the rider of motorcycle

along with the pillion rider namely Prakash, who

dashed ag ainst a p arked lorry lead ing to the

occurrence of accid ent. The FIR clearly evid ences

this asp ect of claimant being the rider of the

motorcycle and respondent No.1, his b rother was

the pillion rid er. It is also seen on the b asis of

Ex.P.9 which is furnished b y the claimant himself

that as on date of ad mission to the hospital, the

history note reveals that the claimant himself was

riding the bike on 16.10.2012 and hit by a lorry

and there was no history of loss of consciousness

as per the recordings of the discharg e summary.

16. This clearly evidences the fact that

claimant himself was riding the bike and dashed

against the p arked lorry. However claimant has

- 11 -

tried to make out a case that he was a pillion rider

by producing Ex.P.3 which is further statement of

the comp lainant who has thereafter chang ed his

statement by saying that the claimant was a pillion

rider and his brother was the rider of the

motorcycle involved in the accid ent. But this Ex.P.3

is a statement recorded by the police of the

complainant one Ramesh which is admittedly not a

signed document and the same cannot be relied for

the purpose of considering any evid entiary value of

the said document. The said complainant is also

not examined by the claimants. It is also seen as

per Ex.P.1 FIR that the same is registered ag ainst

the claimant.

17. All the above police records have been

filed by the claimant himself. The same reveals

that claimant himself was rid ing the bike, b ut

however in ord er to make unlawful g ain and claim

comp ensation by wrongful method, has concocted

and fabricated Ex.P.3, unsig ned further statement,

which appears to be in collusion with the

jurisdictional police. The charg e sheet at Ex.P.7 is

- 12 -

also filed ag ainst the 1 s t respondent who is none

other than the brother of claimant. The above said

police records and reliance of the same by the

claimant is clearly evid ent of the fact that the

same has been fab ricated and concocted only for

the purpose of claiming comp ensation.

18. Though claimant has examined himself

and the doctor to estab lish the injuries suffered by

him in the accident, he has not examined his own

brother who is alleg ed to b e the pillion rid er and

also he has not examined the comp lainant one

Ramesh who reg istered the FIR and also the further

statement at Ex.P.3. The non examination of said

complainant to substantiate Ex.P.3 clearly creates

susp icion with reg ard to the document namely

Ex.P.3 and also the story woven by the claimant

with reg ard to respond ent No.1 riding the

motorcycle and meeting with accident.

19. All these aspects have b een clearly d ealt

with b y the tribunal and has p assed a very well

consid ered and reasoned ord er for d ismissal of the

claim petition. When the claimant himself has

- 13 -

relied on the police records and the records from

the hospital, he cannot turn around to say that it

should not be considered , which lacks bona fides.

It is clearly app arent on the face of record that it is

against him. The said documents produced by the

claimant are contrary to his own plead ings and

evidence on oath. Therefore, however much further

lies or fabrication of concoction of stories by the

claimant would only b e further detrimental to his

case. It is seen in many of the motor vehicles road

traffic accident cases that there is fab rication and

concoction of record s to make unlawful g ain, few

with collusion of the police authorities. In the

present case on hand it is apparently evid ent that

the claimant and the 1 s t respondent who is none

other than his own brother have concocted a story

to claim comp ensation from the insurer. Such type

of litig ation has to be curb ed and nipp ed at the bud

to avoid unnecessary unwanted concocted p etitions

seeking compensation. The tribunal has rightfully

dismissed the claim petition by carefully analyzing

the entire materials on record and on appreciation

of the same, the tribunal has also imposed

- 14 -

exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/- while d ismissing the

claim p etition.

20. Having gone through the entire original

records and on perusal of the material p laced on

record , and the vociferous sub missions of the

learned counsel for the claimant, I am of the

opinion that these typ e of litig ation are required to

be d ealt with iron hand, so that a strong messag e

is sent to unscrupulous litigants intending to make

fast and unlawful g ain at the cost of the insurance

comp any in collusion with police authorities.

     21.    I    do    not      find   any    cog ent    reason    to

entertain this        appeal     which is       devoid   of merit.

Accordingly I pass the following:


                                ORDER


     The        appeal     is     dismissed      with    costs     of

Rs.10,000/-.




                                                SD
                                              JUDGE
Mrk/-